How Trump Ripped Off Millions of Supporters

[laughing dog]

It really should illegal to have recurring payments as the default option.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The 'male enhancement' market is rife with this shakedown. The introductory price will be $4.95 on your credit card, but the microscopic print on the bottle will say that your purchase has enrolled you in their monthly reorder scheme, unless you call promptly to cancel.

Which makes me wonder: Is Donald going to launch the Trumpagra pill, for men?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

NPR is just as bad... for just a dollar a day... Yeah, that sounds cheap, until you remember there are 365 days in a year! That is like almost $10 a week! Those monsters!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It really should illegal to have recurring payments as the default option.

That's going a little too far--subscriptions often are recurring monthly payments.

I'd prefer something like a requirement that the renewal rate be more prominent than the introductory rate.

 

[laughing dog]

It really should illegal to have recurring payments as the default option.

That's going a little too far--subscriptions often are recurring monthly payments.

I did not write that recurring subscriptions should be illegal. I wrote that it should be illegal that the default should not recurring - that means the default is non-recurring and someone would have to check the recurring payment - someone would have to actively choose the recurring option.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It really should illegal to have recurring payments as the default option.

That's going a little too far--subscriptions often are recurring monthly payments.

I'd prefer something like a requirement that the renewal rate be more prominent than the introductory rate.

Or when you give donations, it is explicit that it is a one-time or recurring donation. A weekly donation?! No one does that!

 

[Elixir]

Very high chargeback rate should mean the credit card companies cut him off.

They'll tolerate astronomical chargeback rates if the gross volume of "sales" justify it. It appears that they're making tens of millions from the Trump Scam, so I'd expect them to be okay with some millions in chargebacks. After all, it only costs them the administrative hassle, not the amounts of the chargebacks. It's not like stolen credit cards...

 

[TomC]

Very high chargeback rate should mean the credit card companies cut him off.

They'll tolerate astronomical chargeback rates if the gross volume of "sales" justify it. It appears that they're making tens of millions from the Trump Scam, so I'd expect them to be okay with some millions in chargebacks. After all, it only costs them the administrative hassle, not the amounts of the chargebacks. It's not like stolen credit cards...

I don't know how this works, so I could be completely wrong.
But my understanding is that the credit card processor keeps their percentage of the transaction, even if the money gets returned.
Not much motivation to keep the website honest.
Tom

 

[jab]

In response to the earlier post saying the defrauded should have checked their monthly statements: The withdrawals were weekly--at least latterly during the running of this scam--so that a monthly check would discover 1, 2, or 3 scammed payments already made.

 

[Elixir]

Very high chargeback rate should mean the credit card companies cut him off.

They'll tolerate astronomical chargeback rates if the gross volume of "sales" justify it. It appears that they're making tens of millions from the Trump Scam, so I'd expect them to be okay with some millions in chargebacks. After all, it only costs them the administrative hassle, not the amounts of the chargebacks. It's not like stolen credit cards...

I don't know how this works, so I could be completely wrong.
But my understanding is that the credit card processor keeps their percentage of the transaction, even if the money gets returned.
Not much motivation to keep the website honest.
Tom

Credit card companies and processors are two different entities. Yes, processors are in the catbird seat. They really don't care what happens - they have to conform to PCI (Payment Card Industry) standards and make reasonable efforts to ensure that their merchants (ones who use them as processor) comply with the PCI standards that apply to them. As long as they do that, they get paid. Credit card companies suffer the losses when the cardholder charges back and the "merchant" disappears, or if the CC info is stolen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It really should illegal to have recurring payments as the default option.

That's going a little too far--subscriptions often are recurring monthly payments.

I did not write that recurring subscriptions should be illegal. I wrote that it should be illegal that the default should not recurring - that means the default is non-recurring and someone would have to check the recurring payment - someone would have to actively choose the recurring option.

In some cases not having it repeat doesn't make much sense.

It really should illegal to have recurring payments as the default option.

That's going a little too far--subscriptions often are recurring monthly payments.

I'd prefer something like a requirement that the renewal rate be more prominent than the introductory rate.

Or when you give donations, it is explicit that it is a one-time or recurring donation. A weekly donation?! No one does that!

Weekly = recurring. I do agree it's not much sense but that shouldn't be prohibited.

What should be prohibited it in any way concealing what is going on. All options should be clearly displayed.